>> some guy named senator nelson. senator bayh gets and senator cruise. show your love for the committee. senator warning. >> thank you, mr. chairman. great to see all the commission members here. one of the things that senator wicker and i, and senator snowe before that, worked on at some length was trying to make sure we got a good inventory of the spec term.

colleagues on board with that. related to that, the spectrum gets more and more valuable. as somebody who benefited him -- i wantase value, to talk a little bit about the chairman mentioned this. i understand that this would look at all the new technologies coming on, obviously in the wireless space, if you would like to comment on how you are looking at the whole question of receiver standards and whether this is going to be a mandatory system or, potentially a voluntary buy-in. newre continuing to see

opportunities, i think about auto industries and others i want to think about smarter cars as well as smarter phones. there is a constant question here about interference issues, hit some other errors in the past. >> there was a time when people thought spectrum was not scarce anymore. we know that the opposite is the case. we have some real challenges on freeing up more spectrum. what we have learned as we have done it is that, where we have spectrum that is being , sometimesly used because of restrictions, like satellite restrictions, we see receivers come on the market that get interfered with as we remove unnecessary restrictions. we have to tackle that. we are running a process at the commission to determine the best way to do that. i know the committee is looking

at it. we need alter the incentive structure so that we don't see that kind of issue. >> anyone else want to make a comment on that? >> i would reference everything the chairman said. receiver standards are important. we hope there could be private sector consensus here. let us push towards that. and overall goal to increase efficiency. it is going to take the better part of a decade to get into the hands of consumers. what do we do in the meantime? one thing we should avoid is the upcoming incentive option, is making it too complex, too complicated. having been a veteran of the 700 megahertz auction, my first dissent was cast on the c block.

that probably resulted in interoperability problem. let's be careful of making these things too complicated and trying to outguess the market. we can't. ,> speaking of interoperability one thing comes to mind. the lower 700 megahertz where there are issues as it relates to an interoperability there has been engagement for almost a year. and still hopeful for a voluntary solution. the fcc in its history has either mandated or encouraged interoperability across the board. a role in urban areas. they benefit from it. where we can, we should either mandate or strongly encourage voluntary engagement. >> i agree with the voluntary component. i know in the past and has not always been successful. at the end of the day, pushing out new technologies, we will

need to use of the spectrum again. --m concerned as well adding whole series of questions for the record. there seems to be black siding on -- backsliding on usf group warm -- reform. this is obviously a change of technologies. if we are going to get the kind of rural broadband appointment that many of us all want to see. this will have to be a component. bikes are heard you say there should not be backsliding. >> that's right. >> i completely agree. >> my time is up. i also want to echo comments and some of my other colleagues have made, i know it opens up a can of forms. -- worms. the marketplace moving so quickly, at some point a broader-based, looking at the

reworking of some things, it ought to be the subject of the committee, it started on a path. it may not happen overnight. rate potential. i think the chairman and the committee. >> thank you. to thek you commissioners who come to minnesota in the last year or so. i want to start out with unlocking. i appreciate the leadership the fcc is taking on this issue. i introduced the wireless consumer choice act with senator lee and senator lempel -- blumenthal. we think this is a great opportunity to open this up for competition. there has been a lot of outrage over the decision by the library

of congress. the recent decision that creates uncertainty for consumers who want to unlock their phones from one network to switch to another. i see this as an opportunity, and i wondered if you would commit to work with us on this bill to address any concerns and take action. an agree that unlocking is impediment for consumers choosing to switch carriers and is a barrier to competition? >> i do. i think the decision from the library of congress raised competition. thank you for your leadership. it appears to be a bipartisan issue. we need to address that, because right now, there are criminal penalties for somebody who gets a new phone and unlocks it. it does not make sense. >> no it doesn't. anybody want to add anything? >> it is important to get past the headlines on this issue.

while we need to dispel this image of consumers being hauled , we also needfs to understand that we need to protect intellectual property rights. there is contract law, which are bill speaks to, that can convey and give consumers lots of options in freedom here. let us make sure we are not undermining intellectual property rights. ,> i agree with my colleagues and also affordability is a factor. environmental factors -- if you have got to make all of these changes every time you have an option to change providers. that is not good for the environment, too. all of those things go into play. thank you for introducing that. >> i agree, i would be happy to help through the fcc or through the updating the digital millennium copyright act. the most stunning thing is to find out about the great power of the librarian of congress. >> i thought the same thing.

as you referenced, senator and i thinkbill, it is a different approach. i do think it is important for this committee with its jurisdiction over telecommunications to be involved in this decision. that is one of the reasons we introduced the bill this way. ,> contract law in my view rather than criminal or copyright, should govern the relationship the wireless consumer and provider. i would be more than happy to work with you, whether it is an .xemption to the d mca we stand ready to aid. >> thank you. the fccess today, taking the issue seriously about call completion. thank you very much. could you discuss, mr. chairman, what this consent agreement means for the industry? with calld issues

completion in my state and others. >> it sends a clear message that it is not acceptable. we will take seriously any instances that we find of failure to complete calls. we will continue to investigate reports and if it is necessary to have more enforcement actions, that is what we will do. >> i understand the fcc has an open proceeding the legal consequences of expanding or redefining what a multichannel programming distributor is. what have you found so far that would alter the definition from the competition and bring prices for video services down for consumers? we have had some issues come up in some suburban areas about the price of cable. and also transparency. not reached any decisions in that proceeding.

i think we all are concerned about rising prices to consumers. and the need to keep on pushing competition policies in this area. >> thank you. i will follow-up more on that. i will let my colleagues go on. i will put some questions on the record. especially on metal theft and copper telecom wires, a growing problem. we have a bill that we have cosponsored and their is some interest in that. we'll put of the record. >> thank you. thank you all for serving on this commission. it is an exciting time to be on here. i may not use all my time for questioning. 4:30e a war: 30 -- appointment to unlock my phone. [laughter] then i have to go see the librarian of congress.

you were so involved in the internet freedom debate that took place, here's my question. i am interested in working on some draft legislation with others that would declare the policies of the united states as to promote a global internet free from government control. i'm not asking you to endorse legislation, although feel free to do so. i would ask you, do you think that the men from the congress would be something that is helpful in regards to the position of the united states in these international bodies and beyond? >> thank you for your leadership on this issue. and every member for supporting the resolution last year. the short answer is, yes that would be tremendously helpful. >> good. second question is about spectrum. the way i have explain this to people back home and across the country when asked, you often hear conversation about roads and economic development. you have to get your products from entry point to end-use

customer. spectrum is similar to that in my mind. is what capacity allows people to quickly get information on tablets or cell phones or what have you, it would give us a cutting-edge -- i have been concerned about staying on the competitive edge. we hear differing reports on where we are in person to the rest of the world. it seems to me, i may be wrong, i'm concerned that any wireless industry the demand for wireless broadband might outstrip our our ability to provide the supply. the question is, would it be helpful if congress authorized mold spectrum options -- multiple spectrum options? justin you have a pipeline of spectrum entering the marketplace. is that something you often might be helpful? >> you are thinking about spectrum as infrastructure is exactly right. one of the challenges we all face is that it is invisible.

it can be hard to generate the action we need. that is why this action was so important. you are right to identify the supply-demand issue. is getting supply of spectrum to auction. how do we get more spectrum from government use would be helpful. we can hold an option any time, but we need to supply in order to auction. if that is something i look forward to working on with you. >> he is absolutely. federal spectrum has to be a priority. getting the government to overrate spectrum for private sector use, exclusive use licenses. >> and you can provide the incentives that might be needed by the federal holders of spectrum. i look forward to working with you on that. >> you are absolutely right, the broadband and he does and the airwaves around us are the roads, ports, and canals of the

21st-century. making sure we have enough spectrum in the pipeline to meet the demand of that infrastructure. i think what we are going to have to do moving ahead is identify ways to make sure that our federal users of spectrum are rewarded when they use it efficiently. if they use it efficiently, they should see some game, whether it is through appropriations or budgeting or some other system. if they use it efficiently, they will return more spectrum for commercial use and there'll be more in the pipeline which will help grow our wireless economy. >> i agree with your characterization. the problem -- the devices we are using today are in some cases 128 times more days at -- data intensive than they were years ago. one of the processes established now as modified by the legislation last year involved a notification and auction process. as i outlined, that is an

established process by which the fcc would notify about spectrum that could be repurposed for commercial use. if we adopt that process and , that it in a robust way would be fair and flexible for everybody. federal users, the private sector, and i hope we use it more often. >> thank you. >> thank you for holding this hearing. i want to thank my colleagues for their leadership on the unlocking bill. i have been very glad and proud to cosponsor. the proposed merger involving t-mobile and metro pcs, has that been approved? >> it has. >> when? >> today.

>> this was released at what point today? >> i don't remember the time. earlier today. >> hours in advance of this hearing. >> yes. >> wasn't approved of a bureau or commission level? >> the bureau. >> can you tell the committee this deal involving 40 million subscribers, billions of dollars, are you aware of any transaction of similar size that has been approved at the bureau level rather than being circulated for a vote by the commission? >> there have been large transactions. >> as large as this one? >> my information is that none of this size, in terms of dollars and impact on consumers has ever been approved by the bureau as opposed the commission. >> this may be the largest, the global crossing transaction was very large. where there are no conditions -- petitions to deny, these are typically done at the bureau

level and this was consistent with the president in the area. >> i don't want to take time in this issue now, but i will have follow-up questions. >> of course. , at&toticed that today announced a rate hike. on its dsl service, this comes one week after verizon. both of them trouble me. price increases sometimes are a fact of life, but one we see increases in the market as important as the sun, not only on its impact on consumers, but also our economy, i think we ought to pay closer attention. let me ask about the fcc's efforts to regulate prices in the marketplace. the broadband plan recommended that the fcc will collect and monitor prices and make that data publicly available so

consumers can make more informed decisions. i know the commission has an open rulemaking on the issue. i wonder if you could tell this committee what the status is of implementing this recommendation and do you believe that the fcc needs such data to meet your statutory responsibilities? is the broadband plan pointed out, that would be helpful data. what is underlying your question is the need for competition to drive lower prices, better products, more private investment. i completely agree with you. it is something that we have worked very hard on in the mobile space. we have seen much better trends in mobile competition of a last couple of years than we had seen before. there is more work to do. ask a you troubled by these rate increases? >> i am troubled by rate

increases that aren't based on competitive factors. these are not something that we specifically stated. we can get it together with with you. >> i would appreciate that. that area,ow-up on as well. because my time is limited, blackouts. sports blackouts. great concern, deeply troubling. especially to many in connecticut, when they see that their favorite football team on sunday or baseball team or college sports team has been blacked out in their area. the commission put out a notice of inquiry that has not yet moved to a notice of rulemaking. a road to be of use who -- i wrote the fcc in 2011 to open this proceeding to discuss whether the nearly 40 year old sports bucket rule, i think it is 40 years old, is still in today's environment i.

is having you could give me a status update. i think it is important across the nation. >> blackouts are of tremendous concern. we hear of them as you do. an area where it is up to often is in the return ocean consent area. as an area we have had discussions in the past. it may be time to update those provisions to reduce the chances of blackouts during retransmission consent negotiations. >> will you plan to move to a rulemaking proceeding? >> our authority under the existing statute is limited. this may be an area where we have to work with the committee to address the blackout. >> my time has expired. i would like to follow-up on this area as well and get more specific and detailed answers. i want to thank you and all the commissioners for your diligent work. you only exceeded your time

by 31 seconds. i would not worry about it. your questioning is always excellent. senator nelson. >> thank you. i believe that this closure -- disclosure is one of the strongest things that can happen in the public sphere. , the federalgo had thistions act provision -- section 317. requiring the on air identification of sponsors of all advertisements, political and commercial. and when the fcc wrote the thatation, they said

andtical ads must fully fairly disclose the true identity of the person or persons or corporations, committee or association or that paysp or entity for them. as you know, as a result of a supreme court decision, we have been beset upon in the political ofere with an avalanche moneylosed, unlimited from sources that the public does not know where the political communication, arguing for or against a particular candidate, comes from. supremeitizens united court decision that set off this

crazy contortion of campaign- anance law, there was interesting statement by the court. joined by eight of nine justices. the lessdisclosure is restrictive alternative to more comprehensive speech regulations. that would indicate that the court is looking improving late -- approvingly of disclosure. you have got the statutory power. we do not have to do what we failed by one vote with 59 votes and did not get 60 votes , to have theo disclose act. you have the power. i would like to know what each one of you thinks about

implementing the statutory authority that you have for all of that undisclosed money that is hiding behind the committee for godmother and country and is fueled by various special interests. >> it is a very important issue, and i agree with you that disclosure is a first amendment friendly, powerful tool in the space. last year, this is a contentious decision, we approved new rules that required broadcasters to put online the information that they now receive about political ads. they do receive a significant amount of information. i a 3-2 vote, we adopted those rules and started rolling out before the last election.

it will continue. part of what i think we are obliged to do now is look at the effect, as it rolls out, continue -- consider the kinds of issues they are raising and consider what next steps are appropriate. >> the statute passed two years ago. it requires on air identification of all sponsors of all advertisements. then the fcc ruled that and lamented the statue says, fully and fairly disclose the true identity of the person, talking about political ads. does that mean you are a no vote? >> there are requirements in place on disclosing, including on-air, the sponsors of ads. i think you are suggesting that we look at going more deeply

into who the actual funders are. i think that is an important issue and something we should look at. >> i am talking about the enforcement of the fcc also rules that flesh of the statue that was passed. would you indulge me to just sit with the rest of the commissioners say? >> thank you for the opportunity to comment. you are right, disclosure and transparency are good and curative in many contexts. as the chairman pointed out, about a year ago, there were only three of us at the time, , ire was a 3-0 vote dissented against the disclosure of broadcast rates -- how much it cost. i am concerned about pollution. we want to encourage transparency. you have to balance that against what is the right forum -- the federal election commission or federal communications commission? * the and forces of komodo --

are broadcasters the enforcers of political campaigns? are a lot of her to get formed in contact of elections. newman to, and close to old media, a lot of different places. we need to be careful to balance. >> there is no balance here. it says, requires on air identification of the sponsors of advertisements. does that mean you are a no? >> there are fec rules and sec rules regarding these things. fast talking at the end of ads covers a lot of that. >> we just came through more than $1 billion, probably 2,000,000,000-3,000,000,000 of undisclosed sources.

this is not a matter of, this is not an issue in front of the public. it is here, right now. what about you? >> i would look forward to working with you if there is anything that we have or have not done, or that you identify as deficient. we moved a long way in moving the information with stations that were previously keeping on premises to the airwaves. it made the opportunity for investigative work more clear. if there is anything we left any iny i'm not dotted -- not dotted. >> that is a maybe. >> i will make it easy, yes. sunlight is the best disinfectant and we should look at our roles, make sure they are

updated under section 317 and the filings that we receive are as transparent as they need to be. valuehare my colleague's of transparency and all phases of our work. one of the issues we are confronting is that another section of our roles requires the disclosure of persons, committees, persons or other entities that are sponsoring advertisements. there is a question whether that requires the disclosure of all the sponsors who are underlying the actual sponsors. 32nd television ad, would you have to identify every sponsor of who was funding? the other things, september 2012 or two that studied this issue in depth, it pointed out that regardless of what congress says with respect to the law

and what we do, it would not hurt to update some of our guidance to broadcasters. some has not been updated since 1963 in talks about the fact that the expensive can the escope prints. in >> that somebody maybe yes. in which case, need one more vote. three votes. this is of great consequence to the political sphere of how it was influenced by undisclosed, unlimited money. thank you. >> yield to a question? >> of course. >> it is a fascinating question. of the to the very root integrity of democracy. clearwere two fairly

. there is no complexity and his question. , toe is no way, cerebrally avoid answering his question. to say that the fcc could do it, somebody else could do it. that is not what he is asking. he says, you have the power to do it, and he's asking, will you do it? think it is unfair for him to insist. you have my permission, and doesn't kill me, iz think he should press his point. >> i would be happy to add to that. we took a major step last year in increasing transparency around political ads and making the information available to consumers. -- >> you might have done that.

and i commend you for that. but it did not affect the outcome. here is the outcome -- it is disclosure. have to those entities put their mouth where their money is, it is too embarrassing for some of them. some of them, of course, it was obvious. they made no bones about this. but when you hide behind that committee of the flag, mother, and country, and in the name of that entity, all of the contributions are made, you are violating the statute and rule that you all implemented to flesh out the statute. >> thank you. >> that was very interesting.

it would be interesting at some point for the discussion -- let me, as many of you know i always start, first, i want to thank you for all the work you have done in regards regards to some of the adjustments you have done and work in regards to alaska. always being parochial and caring about mistakes,, i want to lay a data point down. a new study came out, i think it was the brattle group, found that 60% of alaska has wholly inadequate telecommunications. no wireline broadband servers, no wireless service whatsoever. census blocks have no wireless service at all. just to get three g, forget forgery, just to get three g is a quarter of a billion dollars.

we have a significant investment need. will ask you a couple questions in regards to -- i know you just finished order six. one of the issues that cannot, let me state it here. you have done some positive impacts for alaska. inappears there is an error your analysis. the first that comes to mind is the definition of tribal lands. the fcc itself considered lifeline and link up services, recognized alaska as designated 100% tribal lands. we are not like any other state, we do not have reservations. in 2012, july, the wireline bureau conceded that not treating a loss as 100% tribal lands was an area -- air. to date, it has not happened. designation,nt

the north slope, 23% tribal. were you come up up with the data to back that up? being born and raised, i tell you -- they are going to be anxious to talk to you about what tribal land is. i know you had some commentary, which i appreciated. i don't know how you come up with these designations. i am anxious how you came up with that, and i want to see the data. i will tell you, i will be surprised if the fcc understands, no disrespect to any of you, what tribal lands are. 23% of the north slope ro is one example. it is not tribal land. the whole area is tribal land. it has offended many of my constituents in alaska how an agency can determine what tribal land is. when you already have one of the bureaus saying they made an error i.

i want to get the data, i hope it comes from somewhere. -- thank youpretty for the positive remarks. you and i have spent much time talking about this, in alaska, but not in the north slope. certainly, we all recognize that there are elements of alaska that are unique and that we have to take into account in our roles and the tribal issues in alaska are complex and important. on the specific question you are asking, i would like to follow- up with you on that. the north slope -- >> that is just one. they all have different percentage designations. >> we will provide that to you and work with you on this. let'>> thank you for raising ths

issue. if it weren't for senator ted stevens, i would not be here. i am eternally grateful for that. >> you probably agree about tribal issues 100%. i nurture my view of that. fore always fight inserting alaska native lands in our language. it has been a priority of mine from my first trip as a commissioner was to alaska in full stop.006 or i up i want to work with you on this issue to correct it if we need to. >> as you know, i came to .laska in the dead of summer and i am unapologetic for that. and want to assure you that we run a data driven process, and

all data and methods in terms of aggression analysis and any other analysis that we have come up with are open to you. i invite you to come down to the office, or we can come to you. it might be easier for you to come to the office on some of this. if there are any remaining questions, which there are -- >> we will make it happen. >> i have been to alaska, there are two points. when you have a regression model, it is only as good as the data you put into it. it is big and fast. it is possible but it does not fit into the model that we use for the lower 48 states. >> on the take two to go through two seconds to go through. we adopted a variable that accounts for provision services in alaska.

for construction in alaska, it is a negative coefficient. the data actually says, which -- that it is 46% lower to construct and in alaska than the lower 48. the create something that doesn't work. a higher costus to construct and san juan than alaska. we have less than four months in some of our areas to construct. how do we explain that? or fix this problem that doesn't make any sense? >> there may be a misunderstanding there. our staff recognizes the cost and expense living out in alaska. we will pursue that with you and your staff. i look forward to that. >> let me just say, commissioner

high -- pai, thank you. i got good commentary on the nine page speech. do you agree that it makes no sense, or that there should be clearer review of additional reductions of the usf fund, especially in alaska? >> first want to thank you -- >> >> you had a different view on the last order. >> thank you for the question. i want to express my appreciation for constructive questions. one of the issues that we are confronting and you encapsulated an elegantstion, model, even one that in the abstract is mathematically sound can run aground on the shores of alaska.

there are a number of unique challenges to state faces which are not adequately captured in the model. there are two solutions to that. one is to stay with things the way they are, the other is to make changes to the model, either by tweaking the variables are putting in better data. as you know, i stand with you in terms of my willingness to get it right. we do what we can to provide predictability and adapt to the conditions. >> look forward to seeing you in june. >> we look forward to that too. >> thank you. he most patient senator cruz. >> i want to thank the chairman in each of the commissioners for your service, for being here for your extended testimony today. i would like to ask a couple questions about spectrum policy. i would like to begin with a

word of caution as the recent exchanges senator nelson. the sec has a long tradition of being nonpartisan. as each of you know, the disclosed act as a subject of deep division within the united states congress. and many are concerned that the disclosed act, if passed, would have a profoundly partisan impact and would raise grave first amendment issues. the word of caution i would raise is, where the commission to endeavor, through rulemaking, to end run congress and adopt a role that would be perceived as overly partisan, i would caution that doing so could well undermine the integrity of the commission and imperil the independence of the commission. i give you that word of caution.

you have an port and statutory mission. -- an important statutory mission. they've the political students to the -- political disputes the members of this body. i don't require an answer to that. that is simply a word of caution. i want to turn to questions of spectrum. thate seen estimates about 85% of spectrum is suitable for wireless broadband. to those estimates consistent and isur understanding it appropriate for the federal government to control such an ofrwhelming majority

spectrum suitable for the broadband? question.mportant others may committee have asked her the walls. we do need to take this issue seriously. i have seen the number 60%, maybe measuring different spectrum. either way, when you compare the usage needs to the amount of spectrum that the federal government has, it does not make sense long term, given the very demands for commercial spectrum. working together on this is absolutely essential. we need to clear and reallocate much more federal spectrum. we also need to look at creative sharing ideas and pursue both tracks. >> does anyone disagree with that assessment? , 85%, number could be 60% more depending on what you determine his the best spectrum. innovation is expanding that.

there was junk years ago that is now prime. the federal government can and must do more to relinquish spectrum for auction for exclusive use licenses. , aret me ask a follow-up any of you aware of any liable assessment -- reliable assessment of the value of all these spectrum that is controlled by the government? if not, can you imagine any sense of a process for valuing it in assessing how significant an asset is the spectrum? an audit ofof federal spectrum has come up earlier in the hearing. it is important. i agree that it should be done. hold up steps we wouldke in the near term rebuilders efficient use of media get on the market. >> the value could be untold.

400 megahertz to three 85ahertz, that is at an percentage point a point you're looking at. based on the two dollar .70 cents we are looking at. its maximum value, i can do the math. it is in the hundreds of the lands. .> -- billions >> a value of federal spectrum holdings is very big. -- this is aod out body -- >> we need to find a way to give incentives to the federal government to be more efficient with its spectrum. when we knock on the federal government store -- government's door and ask for use, they don't see loss. stacy the possibility of gain.

valuing it is the first step. >> if i may ask one follow-up. what would bent, the best process for assessing the macro question? the appropriate level of control and ownership of spectrum by the federal government and the value of that and the appropriate level and ownership to the private sector? >> i do think that audit would be the best process. we can value spectrum on a megahertz basis. i encourage that have. , the federalplus government should justify use of its spectrum in a transparent way. as much as they can be. >> thank you very much. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

it has been a long afternoon already. i appreciate the opportunity to address the commission. the last oversight hearing, we talked about media ownership , and i more or less to where we are. you are looking at a study at this point in time to give you more feedback on the proposed rules. he will pursue what your republican predecessor did with urging more media consolidation. something i don't support your proposed rules are it i will spend a lot of time on that today. pursue aertainly resolution of disapproval, if that is where you end up. i wanted to point that out. it is not that i don't want to ask a lot of questions. i know you are at this stage were you are getting more input from a study.

i do want to ask about unlicensed bactrim -- bactrim -- ctrum. do you agree or disagree that the spectrum crunch also applies to the unlicensed spectrum? >> i agree. we feel that at conferences or airports and we are using unlicensed spectrum which is what wi-fi is built on. we see and feel the congestion. this is likely to get worse and better as more and more video and high-bandwidth uses tribal over unlicensed and wi-fi. we need to free up more spectrum. we proposed another 200 megahertz recently. i also think we need to pursue a do generation, which we can

as part of the incentive auction process. are obviously different propagation prospects -- at 600 megahertz, and 900 megahertz, there are different enables certain things and precludes others. >> agreed. , it is important for innovators to have access to unlicensed spectrum at different frequencies, including below one ago hurt -- one gigahertz. >> it is also the power at which they're permitted to to transmit. there is some wi-fi frequency transmittable over frequencies. it is power limited. this next generation of unlicensed which can be both lower frequencies and higher power levels can make of a different and create new

markets. >> had easy us resolving these issues? had we get the attention so we can get this clarity -- >> this was in front of congress and relation to the incentive auction. there was a direction given to the commission with respect to our guns and looking at unlicensed in those dashboard s. ds -- guard ban >> i have been a long time proponent of the tv white spaces. we need to move forward to the incentive auction proceeding. reservet should not -- unlicensed use. we can still have robust, unlicensed use below one gigahertz just as we are looking at above five gigahertz.

we need to be very careful to not artificially create something that lends itself better to auctioning for lessons purposes and unlicensed. >> it brings up the progeny waiver. is that something the full commission is going to look at? >> i presume so. i would like to get back to you on that. >> why would it not be? >> if it fits into the category of not presenting any significant commission policy decisions. >> i would hope it would be. i think that assuming all five of us would consider. >> that is my point, is to shove some of the things that are already causing challenges in the space. i hope we would have a broader discussion about it instead of having some of these waivers

given and then having --clusions -- pro-collisions will he be a very robust space for all these applications. thank you, mr. chairman. ,> i should point out that , we tuesday at 2:30 p.m. are going to have a classified briefing for congress committee members on the federal government's use of spectrum. that is being sent to offices today. i could go on to violence, but you know what i would say and i know what you would insert. i would just hope that you could take what you did in 2007 and in 2009 and move them forward.

we have to do the heavy lifting on it to give you capacity in violence. i never quite understood that. it has a gut reaction on this committee, which never understood, either. , you do your may work and i will try to do mine. i want to thank you for inconveniencing yourself. this was not according to your schedule, and you had to make a change. the rest of us did not, i don't think. therefore, i think you very much for that. these hearings are interesting in that i wander a bit from time to time, can come up with interesting subjects. i thought senator nelson thing was very important. i have no idea what you all had written about that.

people are interested. they do know the world is changing. they do want to know the right things. we have some ideological differences, not necessarily with me, but with some others, but i think this can be overcome and we can do good work. thank you all for what you do. ,t is complex beyond definition and the hearing is adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] ask the next, --

next, comments by ken coulter and senator ted cruz. then, your live comments and calls on "washington journal." >> chairman of the republican study committee discusses the congressional debate over spending and taxes, energy policy, and the committee's opposition to a carbon tax. is makers, today at :00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> and more private first lady, elizabeth monroe refused to continue the tradition of making social calls. she spoke french and by the white house and gained a reputation of being queenly by her critics. we will explore her relationship with her husband and close relationship with louisa

catherine adams, who is the only first lady born outside the u.s. ban see the complex relationship with her mother-in- law, former first lady abigail adams. we will include your questions and comments, live, monday night at 9:00 eastern on c-span and c- span three and c-span radio and c-span.org. >> at the conservative political action conference, annor,, ms. -- columnist coulter talked about why conservative is the only thing they has to ensure future electoral victories. question andnd a answer session are about 20 minutes. ♪ sandman" plays]

>> thank you. thank you. thank you. some of you know, due to the turmoil in north korea north korea, our regularly scheduled pusser -- speaker will not be here, dennis rodman. [laughter] ninean coulter, author of new york times bestsellers. the sequester has really ruined everything, hasn't it? little kids can't go on white house source, muslim brotherhood has been deprived of 250 million -- oh no, that is safe. had to cut back on its figures this year by about 300 pounds. [laughter]